These
petitions are in respect of a proposed lease of Sugra Humayun Mirze Wakf
property for development to the petitioner. The Mutawalli of the said Wakf sent
to the Wakf Board for approval a proposal For giving on lease the said Wakf
sand for development to one Vallabh Leasing & Finance Private Limited. The Wakf
Board, however, decided to grant a lease for development to the petitioner.
This was challenged in separate writ petitions by the Mutawalli of the said Wakf
and Vallabh Leasing & Finance Private Limited. The writ petitions were allowed.
In separate appeals filed by the petitioners as well as the Wakf Board which
were heard together, the Division Bench of the Andhra Pradesh High Court has
given certain directions to the Mutawalli, asking him, inter alia, to invite
fresh offers. The petitioners have filed these petitions for special leave from
the judgment and order of the Division Bench.

Under
Section 36-A sf the Wakf Act, notwithstanding anything contained in the Wakf
Deed, no transfer of any immovable property of the Wakf by way, inter alia, of
a lease for a period exceeding one year in the case of non- agricultural land
or building, shall be valid without the previous sanction of the Wakf Board.
Rule 12 of the Andhra Pradesh Wakf Rules, 1974 requires that an application for
sanction under Section 36-A shall be submitted by the Mutawalli to the Wakf
Board and shall contain the particulars set out therein. The Board shall on
receipt of an application from the Mutawalli, publish in the Andhra Pradesh
Gazette and the District Gazette of the district, if any, in which the property
is situate, a notice of the proposed transaction. The notice published shall
contain sufficient details of the transaction and shall specify a reasonable
time, not being less than 30 days from the date of the publication of the
notice, within which objections, claims or suggestions may be sent. These shall
be duly considered by the Board before passing orders thereon and if deemed
necessary, after holding an enquiry, in which case a notice of not less 7 full
days shall be given to the parties concerned. These belonging to the Wakf is
used in the best interests of the Wakf and any disposal of this property by the
Mutawalli is required to be sanctioned by the Wakf Board after following the
procedure under Rule 12 thus ensuring that there is a proper examination of the
proposal in the light of the objections, claims or suggestions received.

These
have to be considered by the Board, if necessary, after holding an enquiry. Mutawalli.
who is incharge of the management of the Wakf property would, in such
circumstances, be a party concerned with the disposal of the Wakf property and
the notice would have to be given to him by the Wakf Board under the provision
of sub-rule (4) of Rule 12. We do not; see why the objections, claims and
suggestions which may be received by tile WaKf Board should exclude any fresh
offers in respect of the said property also. Rule 12 does not prevent the Wakf
Board from examining such proposals received as per that Rule. The Wakf board,
however must consider the views of the Mutawalli on such proposals. Looking to
the scheme of the provisions, the provision Bench of the Andhra Pradesh High
Court has rightly come to the conclusion that in the transaction of the kind in
question, where a long term lease for construction of a commercial complex on
the Wakf property is proposed to be issued, the Mutawalli must be given an
opportunity to express his views on the choice of a contractor and the Wakf,
Board cannot decide the question on its own.

The
Division Bench has directed the Mutawalli to advertise the proposal of the
petitioner and to invite fresh offers and place before the Wakf Board for
sanction, the offer that he may consider to be in the best interests of the Wakf.
In the facts and Circumstances this case, the High Court has directed the
petitioner to hand over the possession of the Wakf property to the Mutawalli
and has directed that the fact that the petitioner had obtained vacant
possession of the property will not be considered to give an edge to the
petitioner while choosing the appropriate contractor. Looking to all the
circumstances, we do not consider this a matter where intervention under
Article 136 is required.